User talk:Dough4872/Archive 2022

Orphaned non-free image File:NASCAR Mexico Series logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:NASCAR Mexico Series logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Delaire, Delaware for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delaire, Delaware, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Delaire, Delaware until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kutztown seal.png
Thanks for uploading File:Kutztown seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of State Road, Delaware


The article State Road, Delaware has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Notability not established with substantive sources. Sources and content are about a rest stop and do not describe 'State Road' as a community or notable community"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Silverside Heights, Delaware for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silverside Heights, Delaware, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Silverside Heights, Delaware until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of State Road, Delaware for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article State Road, Delaware is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/State Road, Delaware until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Reywas92Talk 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Road signs
Not sure what this didn't come to me earlier, but I just now see what you are trying to do in keeping the exits consistent with the signs. I thought you were contesting the legitimate names of these places, but you want it useable for a driver, which makes total sense. Is there a way to avoid the redirect? Also, I hope you will reconsider opposing caption links to locations. They make the page more visually appealing and functional, especially for those skimming it. Your closely managed highway articles are some of the very few without them, in fact. I reverted my reversion on I-78. Sorry for not getting your point earlier. That's the dilemma with online communications sometimes :). Keystone18 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, it does not matter whether we spell out the full name of abbreviate per the signs, I just felt we should abbreviate to match the signs and save space. The jct parameter does have a way to hardcore a location as to not link to a redirect; however, there is no harm linking to a redirect. As for the photo captions, wikilinks should not be included unless that term is not linked anywhere else in the article; we don’t need redundant links.  Dough   4872   21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

PA 162
Did you happen to see my note on the PA 162 talk page? Famartin (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, here is a source that mentions the bridge closure.  Dough   4872   19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Weis Markets edits?
Why did you revert the edits, It had a shooting that happened in 2012, Why isn't that on their? 40.138.184.93 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The information you added is false and was about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting happened in 2017. Feel free to add the correct information about the 2017 shooting to the article.  Dough   4872   22:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI you can't use rollback for content disputes
Just letting you know, also please don't restore any material without an inline citation to a reliable source per WP:BURDEN. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't do this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not be blanking the mileage in the infobox and in the major intersections table that is cited to a source. Also just because a route description is uncited doesn’t mean it should be blanked. Instead, a call for citations should be made. Our goal is to improve articles, not tear them apart just because they are not right.  Dough   4872   23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean it shouldn't be blanked either. I am fully within my rights to remove it, you may not restore it until ensuring that it is directly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't just restore unsourced material as you did here, you are required to find a source *first* Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A simple map source can be used to source this information as I mentioned in my summary. Feel free to add a source.  Dough   4872   23:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You know thats not how it works... (or at least you will after reading this) "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - WP:V. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would benefit everyone, most importantly our readers, if you stopped trying to make a point and worked with the highway editors instead of going on a rampage through articles. Use the talk page or citation needed tags instead of the delete key; there is no deadline and these are not BLPs. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried that, Dough4872 stripped by tags. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dough4872 you have not yet reverted your rollback abuse, please do so at the beginning of your next editing session. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You blanked the mileage in the infobox and the major intersections table when they are in fact supported by a source. The blanking of sourced information was uncalled for.  Dough   4872   15:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with using wp:rollback in a content dispute? I see no information sourced to a reliable secondary source among that which was removed BTW. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me: "There is no requirement nor policy to use only secondary sources." Now repeat the following: "I really can't tell the difference between a primary and secondary source." Nevermind the semantics over the use of rollback. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me: there is a requirement to providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If they were directly supported by primary sources you would have a point, but they aren't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this was sourced to a reliable primary source that directly supports everything you deleted. If you have a problem with Google maps, take it to WP:RSN and quit it with the impunitive wholesale blanking and talk page pestering. We have Better source needed, Failed verification, Unreliable source?, Primary source inline and Only primary sources for a reason, use them. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not up to the one who challenges the reliability of the source to satisfy those concerns, its clearly up to those who want to use the source. Would you like to take this to RSN? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you've been so helpful I've decided to open it myself, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also just to be clear google earth could not possibly have supported everything on that page, there is complex analysis that just isn't anywhere to be found on that platform. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep it up against Horse Eye’s Back
I’m rooting for you, he’s a troll masquerading as legit. Famartin (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

roadfan.com and kurumi.com
You have repeatedly insisted that roadfan.com and kurumi.com are WP:RS... Thats just not the case, those are amateur fansites. Even WikiProject U.S. Roads/New user orientation says that "we cannot use the vast majority of roadgeek sites as references." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

proof I can read. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, roadgeek sites should not be used as references in articles per WP:SPS. However, there is no harm as using these as external links in the external links section.  Dough   4872   18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats the reference section not the external links section. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad for that one. But these are fine as external links.  Dough   4872   18:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost anything is "fine" as an external links, the question isn't whether they're fine its whether they're reliable educational sources which we should be directing readers to. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I trust that my traditional fansite policing practice does not offend you in the way that my interpretation of original analysis as it related to maps and roads does? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Roadgeek websites should not be used as sources as I mentioned above. Although I would suggest tagging the roadgeek source with rather than removing the source altogether.   Dough   4872   18:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found through years of experience doing this work in nearly two dozen topic areas that removing SPS gets results, tagging it does not. The biggest difference is that someone can simply remove the tags without sanction, if someone goes around restoring SPS which have been completely removed they're going to be rapidly met with a block or ban. This forces editors who normally would have been lazy or disruptive to do honest work in improving the encyclopedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My philosophy before has been that it's better to have a source for a piece of information than no source, and it's better still to have non-SPSs than SPSs. When working with newer editors, or editors new to the topic area, I work to educate them on reviewing the suitability of certain sources.
 * Now then, it appears that we would have different editing styles regarding how to handle finding SPSs cited in existing articles. I've worked under a method of tagging an existing SPSs as a caution to readers and editors alike, a form of admitting our faults. Or put another way, it's better to acknowledge where information came from than to immediately strip the footnote. I view the SPS tag as an alternate citation needed tag, a request for a citation replacement. Maybe your method is better to just strip citations out and replace them with the CN tag, but I've seen that tag replaced with... the same SPS that was there before, added by a well-meaning editor.
 * One anecdote that I've shared before in different fora, but maybe not on a talk page like this, relates to SPSs. When I was first starting my writing and researching work on Michigan's highways, I contacted the Library of Michigan seeking research assistance on the history of changes to a specific state highway, and their immediate answer was to point me to http://www.michiganhighways.org/, so while Wikipedia throws around "Reliable Source" as a term of art here (caps intentional to distinguish from non-Wikipedia usage), it has a different meaning to professionals outside of Wikipedia. We need to be aware of our biases or preferences in how we use certain terminology, because what we may not deem a Reliable Source for our purposes, may be deemed a reliable source by many others. In this case, that website is quoted in various print and digital media across the state at different times, which is why every Michigan highway article has the appropriate link to a page on that site in its External links section.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, removing external links seems petty and vindictive. Is there something I am missing here? --Rschen7754 00:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Citing an atlas
Just a quick quibble. If you're citing an atlas, that you're citing a book. If you're citing a map within an atlas, then you're citing a map. In short, unless you're specifying a map within a Rand McNally atlas, you should be using cite book, not cite map. Otherwise, you get the mismatch of a citation calling the atlas itself a map, when it isn't. Also, if you're citing the atlas for a national-level junction list, you really should be listing the pages/ranges in the citation.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No sources provided on talk page = AFD
Hi Dough4872! Just reminding you that if you don't name sources which contribute to notability in the talk page discussions I've open and invited you I will be opening a wider community discussion on the matter (commonly known as AFD). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * State highways and above are notable enough for their own articles, and it’s been that way for years. Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors.  Dough   4872   19:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "typically notable" so most of the time notable, but some of the time not... Not "aways notable." WP:USRD/P does not contain the precedent you think it does. You are misrepresenting WP:5P, it absolutely does not say that wikipedia is a gazetteer. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But in order to have complete coverage of a state highway system, we need to have articles on routes of all lengths, from 2-mile local state highways to 100+ mile major thoroughfare state highways. We cannot just cherry pick which highways get articles. In some cases, it may be better to cover state highways in some kind of list if a bunch of them are short or are designed to be short roads to serve state institutions. Also, per 5P “ Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.”, so we do include features of gazetteers.  Dough   4872   19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having complete coverage of everything isn't out goal, see WP:NOT. We can in fact cherry pick which highways get articles (or which X get articles, its a universal standard not a roads one), its called WP:NOTABILITY. We include features of gazetteers, we are not a gazetteer Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT doesn't say that, and a standard of "primary state highways are considered notable" is not "having complete coverage of everything". It's a relatively small set (at most a few hundred per state) of routes that are determined to be significant by a state DOT or legislature. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not our standard. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"USRD standards determine what intersections to include"
Can you explain this? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:USRD/STDS. There is no general Wikipedia policy on what junctions to include so the relevant WikiProject sets standards. You seem to not care for any WikiProject standards though.  Dough   4872   18:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We do in fact have policy and guidelines for this... WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:RS. WikiProjects can't set standards which contradict any portion of the existing policies and guidelines without community consensus. If the standard set by a WikiProject contradicts with that set by the community then the WikiProject loses, every single time. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FAC for Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector
Hi Dough, I wanted to let you know that I started an FAC for Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector last week. You helped get the article to A-Class many years ago, and I'd appreciate it if you could give some feedback on this nomination. Thanks. – Dream out loud (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PECO logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:PECO logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

email
–Fredddie™ 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Delmarva Power logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Delmarva Power logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)